In some circles today, ‘equity’ is being used over against
the word ‘equality’ to suggest a different sort of social
justice. ‘Equality’ is used in reference to individuals being
treated equally and not according to who they are or what group they belong
to. Thus, ‘equality’ means equal opportunity. ‘Equity’ is
now being used to mean ‘equal outcomes’ for certain groups, and therefore this
form of social justice does pay attention to who people are in terms of the
group to which they belong. The word ‘equity’ does appear in
translations of the Old Testament, and so we now need to ask if this new
understanding of social justice for ‘equity’ is intended in the Old
Testament. Does it mean ‘equality’ before the Law or some special
administration of justice for marginalized groups so that there are equal
outcomes for all? Or, is there a different understanding?
The word translated as ‘equity’
in the English Standard Version is, in the Hebrew, mêšār/mêšārim,[1] which the Septuagint usually translates as euthytēs,
uprightness or justice. All its uses in the Old Testament that are
translated in the ESV as 'equity' will be considered. (The Hebrew word is
sometimes translated as 'uprightness/right' or some version of this: 1
Chronicles 29.17; Isaiah 33.15; 45.19; Psalm 9.8; 17.2; 58.2; Proverbs 8.6;
23.16; Song of Songs 1.4 (also note Proverbs 23.31; Song of Songs 7.9; Isaiah
26.7; Daniel 11.6 for some other translations)). Synonyms for mêšār are
‘righteousness’ and ‘justice,’ as in these two Proverbs:
Prov. 1:3 to receive instruction in wise dealing,
in
righteousness, justice, and equity; [ESV translation here and throughout]
Prov. 2:9 Then you will understand righteousness and justice and equity, every good path;
The Hebrew is equivalent to Akkadian, mīšarum,
which was used in royal edicts that were issued near the beginning of an
Ancient Near Eastern ruler’s reign. The new emperor would send out a
decree for justice to right the injustices that had become established prior to
his rule. Isaiah says of a promised, Davidic king,
Is. 11:4 but with righteousness he shall judge
the poor,
and
decide with equity [mîšôr] for the meek of the earth;
and
he shall strike the earth with the rod of his mouth,
and
with the breath of his lips he shall kill the wicked.
More often, when we find the term
‘equity’ in the Old Testament, it is used in reference to God’s rule as King of
the heavens and the earth. Kings of the earth were expected to rule,
as God Himself, with righteousness, justice, and equity. This is
reflected in psalms that speak of God’s rule as King:
Psa. 67:4 Let the nations be glad and sing for
joy,
for
you judge the peoples with equity
and
guide the nations upon earth.
Psa. 99:4 The King in his might loves justice.
You
have established equity;
you
have executed justice
and
righteousness in Jacob.
The reason that the nations can
be glad about God’s judgement is that He shows no partiality among the nations
in His justice. Within Israel, God’s justice is equitably
administered.
A number of times, the idea is
also applied to God’s coming justice: when He comes, He will
establish justice: it is eschatological. Three psalms celebrate
this:
Psa. 75:2 “At the set time that I appoint
I
will judge with equity.
Psa. 96:10 Say among the nations, “The LORD
reigns!
Yes,
the world is established; it shall never be moved;
he
will judge the peoples with equity.”
Psa. 98:9 before the LORD, for he comes
to
judge the earth.
He
will judge the world with righteousness,
and
the peoples with equity.
Jesus’ proclamation of the coming
Kingdom of God, similarly, is a prophetic announcement that God’s justice was
about to break out over the earth. The righting of injustices are
announced as blessings on the poor in spirit, those who mourn, the meek, those
who hunger and thirst after righteousness, the merciful, the pure in heart, the
peacemakers, those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, and those who
are reviled and persecuted and had evil things said about them and who have
been accused falsely on account of Jesus (Matthew 5.3-12). This is
Jesus’ royal edict announcing the coming of the Kingdom of God. All
these have awaited the new King’s coming to reign as they have not had justice
on the earth.
From this study, the meaning of
‘equity’ in these verses seems to present us with an alternative to (1)
equality as equal opportunity and (2) equity as equal outcomes. In
its use as a word to translate the Hebrew, mêšār, it refers to (3)
impartial administration of justice to all. Since many have
experienced injustice, this impartial administration of justice means a great
reversal as the righteous are finally given their reward and the unrighteous
are finally given their punishment. This
third understanding can be found in two related texts of note:
Exodus 23:3 … nor shall you be
partial to a poor man in his lawsuit.
Leviticus 19:15 You shall do no
injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great,
but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.
There are applications of this
study of justice for today. ‘Equal opportunity’ will not equate with
justice when injustices have been done. However, neither will a special
‘justice’—a hand on the scales, so to speak—for certain groups of people bring
about justice. There is one justice administered by one righteous
Judge. Justice for those who have experience injustice is not a
‘justice’ of privilege. It is not an ‘equity’ understood as equal
outcomes for everyone. Instead, it is the application of the same
standard of justice for each person. Those who have been unjustly
treated by the unrighteous powerful will finally be given
justice. The wicked will no longer be able to prosper at their expense.
To make the point more clearly,
take, for example, how people are debating a just approach to hiring people on
a faculty. An ‘equality’ approach to justice would want each,
individual candidate to have a fair shot at the position. An
‘equity’ approach—as the word is used today, not in the Bible—would want to
identify candidates from perceived underprivileged groups and give them special
standing. This, however, is injustice for the
individuals who have merited their strong resumes through years of hard study
and work. A Biblical concept of equity is different. It
would remove obstacles placed in the way of marginalized candidates,
recognizing that these do exist in unjust societies. This likely
means giving candidates more than a fair shot at a job, such as by carefully making
sure that the application process does not discriminate against anyone. Thus, it does not mean hiring someone just
because he or she is from a particular group. It primarily
means—looking at the Biblical texts—removing obstacles, but it could also mean
proactively working to give individuals opportunity to succeed against the odds
against them. While still students, this would mean scholarships for
the academically gifted who lack the finances to continue their
studies. It may mean offering a special scholarship to a father or
mother or widow trying to raise a family while pursuing graduate studies.
This could also be applied to
notions of ‘justice’ that have been applied to course syllabi. An
‘equality’ approach might simply take all authors on a subject and find the
best works to ask students to read. An ‘equity’ approach in the
contemporary sense might entail requiring faculty to put non-Western or
non-white or female authors on their syllabi because so much has been written
by white men from the West. This notion of equity may well work
directly against merit and quality and entail inequality in the name of
equity. A Biblical notion of equity would, first, make sure that
authors are not being excluded because of who they are—whether because they are
from some minority group or from the majority, white, male authors (assuming this
is the case). It may, second, involve trying to promote writing and
publication opportunities for those who are quality authors but unable to
devote themselves to scholarship in the same ways that others are able to do.
Where an individual’s merit is
not critical for the discussion, as in academics or skilled work (doctors,
mechanics, engineers, etc.), the Bible offers more consideration for society
than equity. The Old Testament develops a notion of society that goes beyond
justice. Israelites were to think of one another as ‘brothers,’ and
the language of ‘love’ is used to establish a higher bar than even
equity. God says, ‘you shall love your neighbour as yourself’
(Leviticus 19.17-18). How does this play out? A few
chapters later, speaking of the Year of Jubilee, treating someone as a brother
when he has fallen into poverty means several very practical things: you should
not charge him interest on loans or sell food to him for profit (Leviticus
25.35-37); you should not treat him as a slave when he is dependent on your
employment of him (vv. 39-40); you should not be mean to him as he works for
you (v. 43); he should be bailed out of financial trouble by his extended
family (v. 49), and, if that is not possible, be set free—along with his family—in
the Year of Jubilee (vv. 50-54). This person might have fallen into
poverty for any number of reasons, most of which would have nothing to do with
assigning fault to him or to others. Justice as 'equal opportunity' is
not a helpful approach to his situation. Yet neither is 'equal outcome'
helpful. His situation requires help that goes beyond merely talking
about justice; it calls for loving one's neighbour. When pressed on this,
Jesus told the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10), in which the definition
of this was helping a person in need, not on the basis of race (Samaritans and
Jews were not oppositional ethnic groups).
The contemporary notion of social
justice in the term ‘equity’ has several problems. It creates enmity
between groups by privileging some over others, based on a certain
understanding of history and society. Whether that understanding is
correct or not, it tries to employ inequality to establish
equity. It further fails to treat individuals as individuals. Frankly,
this version of ‘equity’ is often applied in racist or sexist ways in the name
of trying to undo racism and sexism. Thirdly, because it fails to
treat individuals as individuals, it works against any appreciation of
merit. This is especially concerning in situations where merit needs
to be valued. Fourth, it involves someone’s or some group’s
interpretation of where there are inequalities in society. This may
be inevitable, but in fact these determinations are made by people with their
own perspectives pitted against those of others. Who is to say that
a candidate from a certain ethnicity should be preferred over a poor person
with a disability of another ethnicity? Judgements about people in terms
of their group identities made by others with their limited categories for
establishing something 'equitable' are highly subjective. Fifth,
equity as ‘equal outcomes’ fails to address root concerns for those who are
underprivileged because of their financial situation, family situation,
ethnicity, being male or female, disabilities, and so forth. Biblical
justice goes beyond equal opportunity and is not about equal outcomes but
offers a far more radical approach to social justice. Sixth, equity
as ‘equal outcomes’ fails to realize that there are times when unequal outcomes
are preferred. When Paul collected money for the Jerusalem church
from his churches outside Israel, he intentionally sought travelling companions
from those churches to show the representation of many in the Gentile world to
establish a unity between them and the Jewish Christians. He did not take
with him Jews from those congregations. When there was a problem of
unequal treatment of Hellenistic Jews in the Church in Jerusalem, seven deacons
were chosen from among the Hellenistic Jews to make sure that the distribution
of food was equal. When Paul sought to establish overseers or elders
and deacons in Ephesus (1 and 2 Timothy) and Crete (Titus),
ethnicity was not a consideration but soundness of doctrine and ability to teach. The
criteria in each case created conditions for unequal outcomes
in the hiring process. Equal outcomes are precisely what should not be
valued in most situations. Today's notion of equity as equal outcomes
fails to accomplish social justice for a variety of reasons.
[1]
The ESV also translates other ṣĕdākāh,
righteousness, as ‘equity’ in 2 Samuel 8.15 and 1 Chronicles 18.14.
Comments